Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content
Fig. 8 | EvoDevo

Fig. 8

From: Cartilage diversification and modularity drove the evolution of the ancestral vertebrate head skeleton

Fig. 8

Possible scenarios for the evolution of skeletal modularity in lamprey. For these results, we posit that the absence of type II collagen in the branchial arches in Petromyzon marinus is a derived rather than ancestral trait for lamprey. (A) The Semi-Differentiation Hypothesis states that lamprey mucocartilage is the result of halted differentiation wherein a semi-differentiated chondrogenic mesenchyme commits instead to the fibroblast lineage. In this scenario, absence of traditional soxD/E homologs permits the development of mucocartilage, as direct or indirect inhibition of gdf5/6/7 signaling promotes hyaline chondrogenesis. This scenario would partially explain the presence of multiple chondrogenic ECM genes in mucocartilage like type II and IX collagen. (B) The Direct Cooption Hypothesis states that the ancestral function of gdf5/6/7 signaling was primarily chondrogenic and was only later coopted in mucocartilage fibroblasts. This scenario would partially explain the diversity of mucocartilage-like phenotypes with respect to hyaline. (C) The Indirect Chondrification Hypothesis states that the ancestral gdf5/6/7 module was a generalist pathway involved in mesenchyme differentiation and only later acquired chondrogenic function. This scenario would partially explain the differences in lecticans between these tissues, as one was specific for mesenchyme and the other for developed hyaline

Back to article page